Evidence for the existence of God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-01-2017, 04:20 PM
RE: Evidence for the existence of God
since you took the effort to make this threat you can obviously google the definition

so what agenda do you hope to accomplish with this thread ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ace's post
11-01-2017, 04:21 PM
RE: Evidence for the existence of God
(11-01-2017 03:58 PM)pablo Wrote:  I'd be happy if someone could give me a coherent description of god first. Then we could tackle the problem of evidence for it's existence.

Sure. Simply put, the biblical God is a spirit person, the Creator of Heaven and of our physical Universe, and all life therein.

In scientific terms, he is the First Cause.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2017, 04:24 PM
RE: Evidence for the existence of God
(11-01-2017 04:21 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  
(11-01-2017 03:58 PM)pablo Wrote:  I'd be happy if someone could give me a coherent description of god first. Then we could tackle the problem of evidence for it's existence.

Sure. Simply put, the biblical God is a spirit person, the Creator of Heaven and of our physical Universe, and all life therein.

In scientific terms, he is the First Cause.

How do you know a first cause is required for the universe to exist?

How do you go from "first cause" to "intelligent supernatural being that listens to prayers and inspired humans to write the bible?"

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
11-01-2017, 04:27 PM
RE: Evidence for the existence of God
(11-01-2017 04:19 PM)pablo Wrote:  We should be getting to the point soon where Yada here tries to change definitions to suit his bias.
What other reason could someone have for asking people to define a word as simple as "evidence"?

Funnily enough, it is so that some here do not try to change definitions to suit their bias.

Yes, it is a simple word, isn't it? Yet some are struggling to answer the question.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2017, 04:29 PM
RE: Evidence for the existence of God
Evidence: Literally, that which can be seen. More generally, that which can be sensed and measured. By our own senses or by devices that we have designed to measure phenomena that we cannot sense directly. We want to be able to poke, prod and examine it.

The following are not considered evidence:

- Arguments. A logical argument is not evidence. Imagine that the prosecution in a murder trial had brilliant arguents but no evidence.

- Hearsay. Not allowed in court for good reason. We can't poke or prod this second-hand evidence. It is not evident to us because it happened to your friend's nephew's brother-in-law twice removed.

- Anecdotes. While personal experiences are possibly true, I cannot see what only you have seen, so it isn't evident to anybody but you.

Or perhaps you can answer this one yourself. What evidence would you require to abandon your beliefs and take up worship of Pele the Volcano Goddess? I suspect that our standards are pretty similar in this respect. It's likely that yours are even stricter.

I hope that this helps you move the discussion along.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Paleophyte's post
11-01-2017, 04:30 PM
RE: Evidence for the existence of God
(11-01-2017 04:27 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  
(11-01-2017 04:19 PM)pablo Wrote:  We should be getting to the point soon where Yada here tries to change definitions to suit his bias.
What other reason could someone have for asking people to define a word as simple as "evidence"?

Funnily enough, it is so that some here do not try to change definitions to suit their bias.

Yes, it is a simple word, isn't it? Yet some are struggling to answer the question.

There is literally no one here (besides you) struggling to define a word that has already been defined in a variety of places. Don't project onto us because you don't want to present your bullshit Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
11-01-2017, 04:32 PM
RE: Evidence for the existence of God
(11-01-2017 04:29 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Evidence: Literally, that which can be seen. More generally, that which can be sensed and measured. By our own senses or by devices that we have designed to measure phenomena that we cannot sense directly. We want to be able to poke, prod and examine it.

The following are not considered evidence:

- Arguments. A logical argument is not evidence. Imagine that the prosecution in a murder trial had brilliant arguents but no evidence.

- Hearsay. Not allowed in court for good reason. We can't poke or prod this second-hand evidence. It is not evident to us because it happened to your friend's nephew's brother-in-law twice removed.

- Anecdotes. While personal experiences are possibly true, I cannot see what only you have seen, so it isn't evident to anybody but you.

Or perhaps you can answer this one yourself. What evidence would you require to abandon your beliefs and take up worship of Pele the Volcano Goddess? I suspect that our standards are pretty similar in this respect. It's likely that yours are even stricter.

I hope that this helps you move the discussion along.

"I hope that this helps you move the discussion along."

It never seems to when theists try this tactic. Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2017, 04:37 PM
RE: Evidence for the existence of God
(11-01-2017 04:27 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  
(11-01-2017 04:19 PM)pablo Wrote:  We should be getting to the point soon where Yada here tries to change definitions to suit his bias.
What other reason could someone have for asking people to define a word as simple as "evidence"?

Funnily enough, it is so that some here do not try to change definitions to suit their bias.

Yes, it is a simple word, isn't it? Yet some are struggling to answer the question.

Several people have already defined it for you, so get on with your god and pony show...er dog and pony show Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 10 users Like jennybee's post
11-01-2017, 04:44 PM
RE: Evidence for the existence of God
(11-01-2017 04:21 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  
(11-01-2017 03:58 PM)pablo Wrote:  I'd be happy if someone could give me a coherent description of god first. Then we could tackle the problem of evidence for it's existence.

Sure. Simply put, the biblical God is a spirit person, the Creator of Heaven and of our physical Universe, and all life therein.

In scientific terms, he is the First Cause.

A hypothesis. Now show us your evidence this God actually exists.

When I shake my ignore file, I can hear them buzzing!

Cheerful Charlie
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2017, 04:45 PM
RE: Evidence for the existence of God
(11-01-2017 04:21 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  
(11-01-2017 03:58 PM)pablo Wrote:  I'd be happy if someone could give me a coherent description of god first. Then we could tackle the problem of evidence for it's existence.

Sure. Simply put, the biblical God is a spirit person, the Creator of Heaven and of our physical Universe, and all life therein.

In scientific terms, he is the First Cause.

I'm afraid that the argument (see my notes above on arguments =/= evidennce) from First Cause has been done. To death. Resurrected. Repeatedly. Staked through the heart and buried face down at a crossroad. Just so you know we aren't unfamiliar with it. Tongue

It falls to a variety of objections including:

- Why would you expect the universe to have a cause? Causality is a feature of the universe so "prior" to the universe there were no causes to be had. It's a bit like asking when time began.

- Why should this "first cause" not be a natural phenomenon? Get back to me when you've read up on Brane Cosmology.

- Why should this "first cause" be your particular deity? Rather than Zeus, Odin or Cthulu?

- What caused your god? Claiming that your deity is "uncaused" violates the underlying principle that "everything needs a cause" and is referred to as the fallacy of Special Pleading (e.g.: "Please, please let me change the rules so my argument makes sense.").

There. Now that we've done that, again, can we move along? Drinking Beverage

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Paleophyte's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: